Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ MISRA, SAMEER JAIN, JJ.
Munawwar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4759 of 2007
Decided on : 08-02-2022
IPC - Murder - Section 302, Section 34 - Arms Act - Section 25 - [IPC - Section 302, Section 34, Arms Act - Section 25]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case involved the murder of the deceased, who was a Gram Pradhan, by the appellant and two others. The incident was witnessed by the informant and his brother, who were returning on a motorcycle after fetching medicine for the deceased. The deceased was surrounded and killed by the accused persons, and the appellant was found in possession of a country-made pistol. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the prosecution successful in proving the charge of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC but failed to prove the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime, and the use of firearms in the murder. The defense raised doubts about the eyewitness account and the timing of the first information report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the credible eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances. The lapses in investigation were not sufficient to discredit the trustworthy ocular account. The discrepancies pointed out by the defense in the ocular account with the medical evidence were not significant enough to render the ocular account improbable or contrived.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant was ordered to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
1. We have heard Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan along with Ms. Beena Mishra for the appellant -Munawwar; Sri J.K. Upadhyaya, learned AGA, for the State and have perused the record.
2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Badaun in Sessions Trial No.544 of 2006 connected with Sessions Trial No.545 of 2006. In Sessions Trial No.544 of 2006, the appellant was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.18 of 2006, police station Bisauli, district Badaun; whereas, in Sessions Trial No.545 of 2006 the appellant was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime No.94 of 2006, police station Bisauli, district Badaun. By the impugned judgment and order, in Sessions Trial No.544 of 2006, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and a default sentence of one year; whereas, in Sessions Trial No.545 of 2006, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Consequently, this appeal assails the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in Sessions Trial No.544 of 2006.
Introductory facts
3. The prosecution case in a nutshell, instituted on a written report (Exb. Ka-1), lodged by the informant -Jalaluddin (PW-1), at 16.30 hours, on 03.01.2006, at police station Bisauli, district Badaun (of which check report no.03 of 2006 (Ex. Ka-13) and GD Entry No.31 (Ex. Ka-14), giving rise to case crime no.18 of 2006, was made by PW-6), is that while PW-1 and his brother Raees Khan (the deceased) were returning on a motor cycle, after taking medicine for the deceased, at about 3.00 pm, when they took a turn to Bahoran’s place of residence, on way, the accused, namely, Harvir, Iliyas (both not put to trial as they had died in a police encounter) and Munawwar (the present appellant), were noticed with firearms, coming from front. As soon as they (accused) saw the informant and his brother, they shouted that after a long time they could get an opportunity to finish off the deceased. Hearing their shouts, the deceased jumped off from the motorcycle, as a result whereof, the licensed gun which he was carrying on his shoulder fell and was lifted by co-accused Iliyas. All of them (accused) chased the deceased who ran towards the house of Sardar Mewa; there, the deceased was surrounded and killed by the accused persons. It is alleged that Iliyas shot the deceased from the gun which fell off the shoulder of the deceased and the other two accused fired at the deceased from their own country made pistols. It was alleged that the body of the deceased was lying at the spot and that the incident was witnessed by several persons of the village including Shamshad (PW-2) and Rahmat Khan (PW-3). The motive disclosed for the crime was animosity on account of the deceased being elected Gram Pradhan.
4. The inquest proceedings were completed at the spot by 17.40 hours on 03.01.2006 of which report (Ex. Ka-3A) was prepared. The informant (PW-1) is one of the inquest witnesses. Autopsy was conducted on 04.01.2006 at about 3.30 p.m. Autopsy report (Ex Ka-3) prepared by PW-4 reveals following external ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:
2. An abrasion of 1.5 cm x 1 cm, 12 cm above from injury no.1.
3. An entry wound of firearm of 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side of back of chest, 9.5 cm below from inferior angle of right scapula. Margins inverted burning present with clotted blood.
4. An exit wound of firearm 4 cm x 3.5 cm on right side of lateral aspect of trunk, 21 cm below from apex of Axilla. Injury no.(3) and (4) communicates each other.
5. An entry wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on right side of fr
Merely, because they have not been examined is not a ground to disbelieve an otherwise credible ocular account rendered by a person injured in the incident whose presence, otherwise also, is natural ....
Point of Law : The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith, unless wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial c....
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of law : Probability of such guess-work becomes stronger also from the circumstance that as against a solitary gunshot injury three persons have been roped in, out of which, two have not been a....
Point of Law : When there are eyewitnesses to prove the charge, failure on the part of the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of circumstance would become irrelevant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
